Thank God For Moral Violence (Dennis Prager On Why The Use Of Force IS Sometimes A Moral Good Alert)

Townhall.com ^ | 07/04/06 | Dennis Prager

[goldstategop]

Let us make war on the phrase "violence doesn't solve anything." It is a lie, and anyone who utters it cannot be taken morally seriously.

Take, for example, the American use of violence against the Taliban. Thanks to it, Afghani women may get an education, attend public events without a male escort and otherwise ascend above their prior status as captive animals.

Thanks to American violence in Afghanistan, Islamic terror has started to decline in prestige among many Muslims who had previously romanticized it. Though many Muslims still glorify Muslims who blow themselves up in order to murder Jews and Americans, the glamour of terror is dwindling. In Pakistan, for example, there are almost no Osama T-shirts on sale, and no more demonstrations on his behalf.

Even more significantly, a handful of Muslims and Arabs are beginning to ask what is wrong in their cultures, rather than continuing to blame America, Christianity and Israel for their lack of human rights, political democracy and economic progress.

Once again, violence properly used has led to major moral gains for humanity.

You have to wonder how anyone can utter, let alone believe, something so demonstrably wrong as "violence doesn't solve anything," or "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," or any other pacifist platitudes. These are the moral and intellectual equivalents of "the Earth is flat." In fact, it is easier to show that violence solves many evils than it is to show that the earth is round.

It was violence that destroyed Adolf Hitler and Nazism. Only violence. Not talk. Not negotiations. Not good will.

It is violence used by police that stops violent criminals from murdering or otherwise hurting innocent people. There are many innocent men and women alive today solely because some policeman used violence to save their lives.

It was violence that ended slavery in America. Had violence not been used against the Confederacy, the United States would have been cut in half, and millions of black men and women would have remained slaves.

The list of moral good achieved by violence is endless.

How, then, can anyone possibly say something as demonstrably false as "violence doesn't solve anything"?

The answer is difficult to arrive at. Given how obviously moral much violence has been, one is tempted to respond by asking how people can believe any absurdity -- whether it is that Elvis Presley is still living, or that race determines a person's behavior, or that 72 women in heaven await mass murderers.

Vast numbers of people believe what they want to believe or what they have been brainwashed to believe, not what is true or good. For vast numbers of people, it is simply dogma that all violence is wrong. It is a position arrived at with little thought but with a plethora of naive passion.

It is also often the position of the morally confused. People who believe in moral relativism, who therefore cannot ever determine which side in a conflict is morally right, understandably feel incapable of determining when violence may be moral.

Those who say violence never solves anything have confused themselves in other ways as well. They have elevated peace above goodness. Therefore, in these people's views, it is better for evil to prevail than to use violence to end that evil -- since the very use of violence renders the user of it evil.

For those people whose moral compasses are intact, the issue is as clear as where North and South are. There is immoral violence, and there is moral violence.

That is why it is so morally wrong and so pedagogically foolish to prohibit young boys from watching any violence or from playing violent games like "Cops and Robbers." Just as with sex and ambition and all other instincts, what must be taught about violence is when it is right to use it.

For if we never engage in moral violence, it is as certain as anything in life can be that immoral violence will rule the world.

[goldstategop]

Surprisingly, the use of force is sometimes a moral good. In a column reprinted from 2002 for Independence Day, Dennis Prager reminds us again evil can't always be stopped with talk and negotiations. There is a context when its right to resort to violence. Otherwise, the truly wicked will rule the earth.

(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)

[Ken522]

Interesting article - a good read. It reminds me of the old nonsense saying, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

[marktwain]

A more accurate saying would be " Violence is neutral, like gravity."

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Good article, goldstategop! Thanks for posting.

[Stayfree]

People who are violent and use violence to get what they want do so for a very understandable reason...they know it works, at least for them. It is virtually impossible for people who abhor violence (peaceniks)to comprehend such a violent drive because they have already convinced themselves that violence isn't necessary to achieve one's goals. Therefore, do not put your life in the hands of a peacenik if someone is attempting to use violence against you, because you will deeply reget it. Violent characters will never stop being violent until someone more violent stands in their way!

People who are against the death penalty will find their heads cut off, their lives constantly threated with suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices and nukes exploding all around them because they can't bring themselves to be more violent than Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, militant muslims and some North Korean nut case.
By example, the other day, there was a segment on Fox that examined what goes on in California's Pelican Bay Super Max prison and clearly made the point that violence and only violence is the only effective form of communication amongst some of the most violent criminals on earth.

Evil people use violence to control others,
Only violence eliminates evil people!

[Snapping Turtle]

Ping

[Doug Loss]

You can only be a pacifist if there is someone else willing to use violence and coercion to protect you from those who would harm you. Pacifism is at base a child's philosophy, depending as it does on "Daddy" to ensure that bad things don't happen to the pacifist who can then go on his sunny way ignoring the violence done on his behalf. Actually, not ignoring but denigrating, which makes it an adolescent's philosophy--accepting the protection and advantages of "Daddy's" actions but at the same time scorning them.

[Christian4Bush]

bttt

[fanfan]

Good post!

Thanks.

Ping!

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

The Words:

http://www.Freerepublic.com/~ALOHARONNIE


The Pictures:

http://www.Freerepublic.com/~JLO


The Thread:

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1085111/posts

.

[patriciaruth]

I just finished watching 12 episodes from the 1950's TV series The Cisco Kid, one of the first TV series to be shot in color.

This TV cowboy program, about an American of Spanish heritage who was much like the Lone Ranger, was early enough to reflect our cultural values, before TV shows were used to reflect the left wing agenda. I fondly remembered The Cisco Kid and his side kick Pancho (and actors Duncan Renaldo and Leo Carrillo), so I got it and viewed it before packing it for our troops at Ramadi.

What interested me especially was that Cisco actually killed bad guys. He did a certain amount of shooting guns out of hands as became the norm later, but this show actually had bad guys killed on the spot in gun fights, and Cisco using strategy to find a protected place to shoot from that gave him an advantage. Unlike later TV cowboy series, Cisco and Pancho actually hit their targets a fair amount of the time, and also Cisco was often seen replenishing the bullets in his six shooter after so many shots.

Of course, it was still fantasy, often ending with the fist fight with the baddest bad guy; but it was a breath of fresh air seeing good guys going after bad guys again. Between The Cisco Kid and the Lone Ranger and Hopalong Cassidy and Roy Rogers, I realize my childhood TV heroes were often cowboys, and they all carried and used guns for moral good.

[patriciaruth]

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Reflecting the difference in the sci fi writing by liberal Issac Assimov (who coined that phrase) and by Libertarian/conservative Robert A. Heinlein, who would argue that the one who survived was the one who was lethal in most directions the fastest.

[Tolik]

Dennis Prager:

...It is also often the position of the morally confused. People who believe in moral relativism, who therefore cannot ever determine which side in a conflict is morally right, understandably feel incapable of determining when violence may be moral.

Those who say violence never solves anything have confused themselves in other ways as well. They have elevated peace above goodness. Therefore, in these people's views, it is better for evil to prevail than to use violence to end that evil -- since the very use of violence renders the user of it evil.

For those people whose moral compasses are intact, the issue is as clear as where North and South are. There is immoral violence, and there is moral violence.

That is why it is so morally wrong and so pedagogically foolish to prohibit young boys from watching any violence or from playing violent games like "Cops and Robbers." Just as with sex and ambition and all other instincts, what must be taught about violence is when it is right to use it.

For if we never engage in moral violence, it is as certain as anything in life can be that immoral violence will rule the world

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[GOPJ]

You have to wonder how anyone can utter, let alone believe, something so demonstrably wrong as "violence doesn't solve anything," or "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," or any other pacifist platitudes. These are the moral and intellectual equivalents of "the Earth is flat." In fact, it is easier to show that violence solves many evils than it is to show that the earth is round.

Great stuff - wonderful post. Thanks.

[AZLiberty]

The same people say that walls don't solve anything either -- even though the frequency of Palestinian terror events in Israel is way down.

[Dumb_Ox]

Trouble is, violence is so close to "violation" in both etymology and meaning. It's a pejorative term, though Prager can squeeze an article out of pretending it's neutral. The more neutral term "lethal force" just doesn't make for good newspaper copy.

[bitt]

make sure you see the movie "Broken Trail" on AMC Thursday night - if you love cowboy movies where the tough good guys finally win, this movie is right up there with "Lonesome Dove" and "Open Range"....

Robert Duvall is the best cowboy actor ever.

[patriciaruth]

I liked Robert Duvall in Open Range and Lonesome Dove.

What time is the movie Broken Trail on AMC this Thursday? I watch Smallville from 8-9 PDT on a broadcast channel, but my satellite channels run on EDT.

I'm aways looking for good movies to send to the troops, so I'll try and catch it.

[bitt]

website says it's on at 8 p.m. est -
check it out!

the troops would LOVE this.

http://www.amctv.com/


http://brokentrail.amctv.com/

http://washingtontimes.com/entertainment/20060622-083853-5177r.htm

[patriciaruth]

Thanks! We just checked and it's on from 5-9 here. A FOUR hour movie??